Academic Commons Search Resultshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog.rss?f%5Bauthor_facet%5D%5B%5D=Natow%2C+Rebecca+Spiro&q=&rows=500&sort=record_creation_date+desc
Academic Commons Search Resultsen-usInstitutional Changes to Organizational Policies, Practices, and Programs Following the Adoption of State-Level Performance Funding Policieshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:180625
Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8BZ64RKWed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0000In this paper, the authors describe findings from a large, qualitative case study of the implementation of performance funding for higher education in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Specifically, they address ways that universities and community colleges of varying levels of institutional capacity have altered their academic and student services policies, practices, and programs to improve student outcomes and to achieve the goals of their states’ higher education performance funding programs. Most of the academic changes identified concerned developmental education, course articulation, and ease of transfer. Most of the student services changes identified were related to advising, tutoring and supplemental instruction, orientation and first-year programs, tuition and financial aid policies, registration and graduation procedures, and departmental organization. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. Although evidence indicates that performance funding did have an impact on institutional behavior, so did other external influences concurrently seeking to improve colleges’ institutional outcomes. Thus, it is difficult to disaggregate the influence of performance funding from that of other initiatives.Higher education, Educational evaluationrsn2106, lep2148, kd109, hel2112, vtr2107Political Science, School of International and Public Affairs, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Institute for Education and the Economy, Community College Research CenterWorking papersUnintended Impacts of Performance Funding on Community Colleges and Universities in Three Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:180622
Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8MG7N73Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0000This paper identifies and analyzes the types and numbers of unintended impacts—actual or potential—of state performance funding policies on higher education institutions. The authors conducted telephone interviews with senior administrators, mid-level academic and non-academic administrators, and department chairs at nine community colleges and nine universities in three states: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. This paper discusses the types of unintended impacts that interviewees reported as resulting from performance funding programs, making a distinction between impacts that the authors judge as actually occurring and ones that were stated as possibilities. The unintended impacts most frequently mentioned were restrictions in admissions to college and a weakening of academic standards. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. The paper closes with policy recommendations to address these unintended impacts.Community college educationhel2112 , lep2148, kd109, rsn2106, vtr2107Political Science, School of International and Public Affairs, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Institute for Education and the Economy, Community College Research CenterWorking papersImplementing Performance Funding in Three Leading States: Instruments, Outcomes, Obstacles, and Unintended Impactshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:180616
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya M.; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8CZ35WZWed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0000This paper summarizes findings from a large study on the implementation and impacts of performance funding in three states that are regarded as leaders in that movement: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Based on interviews with state officials and with staff at 18 colleges and universities, the authors describe the policy instruments used to implement performance funding, the impact of performance funding on institutional policies and programs, the obstacles institutions encountered in responding to performance funding demands, and the unintended impacts that ensued. While performance funding spurred institutions to make changes designed to improve student outcomes, it is difficult to gauge the impact of performance funding because it was one of several concurrent initiatives aimed at improving outcomes at the colleges. Interviewees reported several obstacles that hindered institutions’ efforts to respond to performance funding demands, including the composition of their student bodies, inappropriate metrics, and insufficient institutional capacity. Interviewees also frequently reported observed and potential impacts that were not intended by the policy designers, such as restrictions in college admissions and the weakening of academic standards.Higher education, Educational evaluationkd109, hel2112, rsn2106, lep2148, vtr2107Political Science, School of International and Public Affairs, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Institute for Education and the Economy, Community College Research CenterWorking papersObstacles to the Effective Implementation of Performance Funding: A Multistate Cross-Case Analysishttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:180628
Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8V123HVWed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0000This paper examines the major obstacles that hinder higher education institutions from responding effectively to the demands of performance funding 2.0 programs, in which performance funding is embedded in base state allocations to institutions rather than taking the form of a bonus. The authors interviewed administrators and faculty at nine community colleges and nine universities in three states with notable examples of performance funding 2.0 programs: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. Across the three states, public colleges and universities experienced the performance funding programs in different ways, but respondents predominantly indicated that student body composition, inappropriate performance funding measures, and insufficient institutional capacity most often made it difficult for their institutions to respond to performance funding. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution. The authors draw on policy implementation theory and principal-agent theory to explain why the local response to performance funding programs may deviate from the directions intended by policy framers, and they offer policy suggestions aimed at reducing the obstacles to performance funding implementation.Higher education, Educational evaluationlep2148, hel2112, kd109, rsn2106, vtr2107Political Science, School of International and Public Affairs, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Institute for Education and the Economy, Community College Research CenterWorking papersPolicy Instruments in Service of Performance Funding: A Study of Performance Funding in Three Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:180631
Reddy, Vikash T.; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Pheatt, Lara Elainehttp://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D89Z93M6Wed, 03 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0000This study examines the primary policy instruments through which state performance funding systems influence higher education institutions in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors interviewed personnel at nine community colleges and nine universities about the use of four policy instruments: (1) financial incentives, (2) communication of program goals and methods, (3) communication about institutional performance, and (4) enhancement of colleges’ capacities to improve student outcomes. The authors examine the immediate impacts of these instruments on college budgets, campus awareness of performance funding goals and institutional performance, and institutional capacity, as well as their impacts on efforts to improve student outcomes. In all three states, policymakers relied mainly on financial incentives to induce change at community college and university campuses. State officials also made efforts to communicate with campus leaders and staff about performance funding and institutional performance, though these efforts varied in their intensity and their level of campus penetration. The authors find very limited evidence of state efforts to build campus-level capacity for organizational learning and change. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution.Community college education, Higher education, Education financevtr2107, hel2112, kd109, rsn2106, lep2148Political Science, School of International and Public Affairs, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Institute for Education and the Economy, Community College Research CenterWorking papersPerformance Accountability Systems for Community Colleges: Lessons for the Voluntary Framework of Accountability for Community Collegeshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:172534
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Bork, Rachel Julia Hare; Natow, Rebecca Spirohttp://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D87W698RFri, 04 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0000Policymakers, higher education associations, blue-ribbon commissions, and researchers are calling for a greater focus on institutional accountability. Thus, the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of Community College Trustees, in partnership with the College Board, have launched an effort to develop a Voluntary Framework of Accountability (VFA) for Community Colleges to ensure that the effectiveness and contributions of these colleges are properly measured. To develop the VFA, the College Board commissioned CCRC to undertake a study that would identify the performance measures states are already using, explore how well those measures articulate with the data demanded by IPEDS and the regional accrediting associations, and illuminate the experiences of state higher education officials and local community college leaders with the collection and use of state performance data. CCRC researchers conducted a survey of higher education officials and community college leaders in 10 states, and reviewed publications by state agencies and national higher education policy organizations. This report discusses the study's findings and implications.Community college educationkd109, rsn2016Education Policy and Social Analysis, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterReportsThe Politics of Performance Funding in Eight States: Origins, Demise, and Changehttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:172358
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Bork, Rachel Julia Hare; Jones, Sosanya M.; Vega, Blanca Elizabethhttp://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8765CD3Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0000Despite the popularity of performance funding among policymakers, only half of all states have ever created a performance funding system for higher education, and these performance funding systems have been surprisingly unstable. Nearly half of the states that established performance funding systems education eventually discontinued these systems. This report examines the political forces that shaped performance funding policies in eight states. The report begins by contrasting the experiences of six states that established performance funding (Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington) with two states that did not (California and Nevada). Second, the report analyzes the demise of performance funding in four states: Washington, Illinois, Missouri, and Florida. Finally, the report examines how and why two performance funding systems that have lasted to this day―in Tennessee and Florida―have changed over time. In conclusion, the report draws evidence-based recommendations for policymakers.Community college educationkd109, rsn2106, smj2108, bev2102Institute on Education and the Economy, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterReportsEnvisioning Performance Funding Impacts: The Espoused Theories of Action for State Higher Education Performance Funding in Three Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:170448
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya M.; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D83X84NGThu, 13 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0000This study reviews the theories of action that advocates of performance funding have espoused for higher education in three states that are leaders in performance funding: Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors found that espoused theories of action are incompletely articulated, with significant gaps in the specification of policy instruments, desired institutional changes, and possible obstacles and unintended impacts. Performance funding is conceived largely as stimulating changes in institutional behavior and student outcomes by providing financial inducements and securing institutional buy-in. Less attention is paid to other policy instruments, such as providing information on institutional performance to the colleges and building up the capacity of institutions to engage in organizational learning and change. The authors of this paper argue that insufficiently articulating the theories of action for performance funding makes it less likely that it will be successful and avoid undue harm.Community college education, Higher educationkd109, rsn2106, hel2112, lep2148, vtr2107Political Science, Institute on Education and the Economy, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research Center, International and Public AffairsWorking papersThe Political Origins of Performance Funding 2.0 in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparisons With Performance Funding 1.0http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:170507
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya M.; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8NS0RWMThu, 13 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0000A new form of performance funding often called performance funding 2.0 (PF 2.0) represents a major shift in performance funding. Unlike earlier forms of performance funding that took the form of a bonus on top of the base state funding for higher education, PF 2.0 is embedded into the base funding itself. PF 2.0 programs are seen as promising means to significantly improve institutional performance due to the fact that they typically tie a larger portion of state funding to performance indicators than do PF 1.0 programs. Additionally, PF 2.0 programs aim to be more stable than PF 1.0 programs, as PF 2.0 performance indicators are written into the regular state funding formula itself and are not separate programs that can be easily dropped. Using three perspectives within policy theory—the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy Entrepreneurship theory, and policy diffusion theory—this paper examines the political forces supporting the enactment of PF 2.0 in three leading states and compares these forces with those involved in the enactment of PF 1.0 performance funding programs.Community college education, Education financekd109, smj2108, hel2112, rsn2106, lep2148, vtr2107Political Science, Institute on Education and the Economy, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research Center, International and Public AffairsWorking papersEnvisioning Performance Funding Impacts: The Espoused Theories of Action for State Higher Education Performance Funding in Three Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:168026
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Jones, Sosanya M.; Lahr, Hana Elizabeth; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Pheatt, Lara Elaine; Reddy, Vikash T.http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8SF2T44Fri, 06 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0000This study reviews the theories of action espoused by state-level performance funding advocates and implementers in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The study found that these espoused theories of action are incompletely articulated, with significant gaps in the specification of policy instruments, desired institutional changes, and possible obstacles and unintended impacts that need to be countered. Performance funding is conceived largely as stimulating changes in institutional behavior and student outcomes by providing financial inducements and securing institutional buy-in. Less attention is paid to other policy instruments, such as providing information on institutional performance to the colleges and building up the capacity of institutions to engage in organizational learning and change. The states’ espoused theories of action for performance funding are, thus, narrower than those for state and federal K-12 accountability programs, which put much more emphasis on information provision and capacity building. Moreover, the espoused theories of action for performance funding in the three states miss important possible obstacles to and unintended impacts of performance funding. This report argues that insufficiently articulating the theories of action for performance funding makes it less likely that it will be successful and avoid undue harm.Higher education, Higher education administration, Education financekd109, smj2108, hel2112, rsn2106, lep2148, vtr2107Political Science, Institute on Education and the Economy, Education Policy and Social Analysis, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research Center, International and Public AffairsWorking papersPerformance Accountability Systems for Community Collegeshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:162385
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Bork, Rachel Julia Hare; Natow, Rebecca Spirohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:20760Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0000Policymakers, higher education associations, blue-ribbon commissions, and researchers are calling for a greater focus on institutional accountability. Thus, the American Association of Community Colleges and the Association of Community College Trustees, in partnership with the College Board, have launched an effort to develop a Voluntary Framework of Accountability (VFA) for Community Colleges to ensure that the effectiveness and contributions of these colleges are properly measured. To develop the VFA, the College Board commissioned CCRC to undertake a study that would identify the performance measures states are already using, explore how well those measures articulate with the data demanded by IPEDS and the regional accrediting associations, and illuminate the experiences of state higher education officials and local community college leaders with the collection and use of state performance data. CCRC researchers conducted a survey of higher education! officials and community college leaders in 10 states, and reviewed publications by state agencies and national higher education policy organizations. This report discusses the study's findings and implications.Higher education, Community college educationkd109, rjh2112, rsn2106Politics and Education, Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterReportsThe Demise of Higher Education Performance Funding Systems in Three Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:146955
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spirohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:13234Thu, 17 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000Performance funding in higher education ties state funding directly to institutional performance on specific indicators, such as rates of retention, graduation, and job placement. One of the great puzzles about performance funding is that it has been both popular and unstable. Between 1979 and 2007, 26 states enacted it, but 14 of those states later dropped it (though two recently reestablished it). To shed light on the causes of this unstable institutionalization of performance funding, we examined three states that have experienced different forms of program cessation — Illinois, Washington, and Florida. For our analysis of the factors leading these three states to abandon performance funding systems, we drew upon interviews and documentary analyses that we conducted in these states. Our interviews were with state and local higher education officials, legislators and staff, governors and their advisors, and business leaders. The documents we analyzed included state government legislation, policy declarations and reports, newspaper accounts, and analyses by other investigators. We inevitably found that factors unique to one or another state played a role in the demise of performance funding. Nonetheless, we also found several common features: A sharp drop in higher education funding (present in Florida and Illinois); A lack of support by higher education institutions for the continuation of performance funding (all three states); The loss of key supporters of performance funding (all three states); Weak support by the business community (Florida and Illinois); and The establishment of performance funding through a budget proviso rather than a statute (Illinois and Washington). The final section of this paper discusses the implications of these findings for advocates of performance funding.Higher education, Education policykd109, rsn2106Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterReportsTennessee and Florida: Continuity and Change in Long-Lasting State Performance Funding Systems for Higher Educationhttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:146907
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spirohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:12848Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0000One of the key ways that state governments pursue better higher education performance is through performance funding. It ties state funding directly to specific indicators of institutional performance, such as rates of graduation and job placement. This study considers the ways that performance funding systems in states with long-lasting systems have changed over time and what political and social conditions explain the changes. We analyze the experiences of two states: Tennessee, which pioneered performance funding in 1979; and Florida, which launched it in 1994. Funding for Tennessee's system has steadily increased over the years, whereas Florida's funding history has been more volatile and now provides much fewer dollars than when it was at its peak. Both Tennessee and Florida have changed their performance indicators substantially. But Florida added nine and dropped two in 12 years, while Tennessee added only six and dropped four over 31 years. Moreover, in Tennessee, performance indicators are added at the end of a regular five-year review, whereas in Florida they have been added irregularly, with no tie to a cyclical process of program reappraisal. Overall, Tennessee's performance funding system has been considerably more stable than Florida's because its initial policy design delineated much more clearly how the system was to be governed and changed over time, and provided for regular and systematic evaluation. Moreover, Tennessee's state legislature has played a smaller role in the ongoing development of performance funding than Florida's. These differences in policy process carry important implications. A system where funding levels do not oscillate greatly and indicators change more gradually and systematically is more likely to allow institutions to plan effectively. Further, such a system will have a more secure base of consent from institutions if it comes under attack.Higher education, Education policykd109, rsn2106Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterReportsThe Political Origins of Higher Education Performance Funding in Six Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:146895
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Bork, Rachel Julia Hare; Vega, Blanca Elizabethhttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:12844Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0000Performance funding is a method of funding public institutions based not on inputs, such as enrollments, but on outcomes, such as retention, degree completion, and job placement. The principal rationale for performance funding has been that performance funding will prod institutions to be more effective and efficient, particularly in a time of increasing demands on higher education and increasingly straitened state finances. Critics of performance funding have warned that it could potentially provide state officials with an excuse to cut back on the regular state funding of higher education and at the same time provide college officials with an incentive to raise their retention and graduation rates by becoming more selective in their admissions. This report examines in detail the origins of state performance funding in six states: Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. These states were chosen for analysis because they have considerably different state performance funding systems and histories as well as higher education governance arrangements, political systems, political cultures, and social characteristicsâ€”all of which enables the authors to look at the formation of state performance funding systems from a wide variety of angles. Interestingly, analysis reveals that there are striking similarities among these six states, particularly in terms of who were the main supporters and opponents, what beliefs animated them, and what political openings allowed policy entrepreneurs to put performance funding on the decision making agendas of state governments. This analysis yields some important lessons for policymakers, which are discussed at the conclusion of this paper.Community college education, Education policykd109, rsn2106, rjh2112, bev2102Politics and Education, Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterReportsContinuity and Change in Long-Lasting State Performance Funding Systems for Higher Education: The Cases of Tennessee and Floridahttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:144988
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spirohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:12694Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000One of the key ways that state governments pursue better higher education performance is through performance funding. It ties state funding directly to specific indicators of institutional performance, such as rates of graduation and job placement. This report considers the ways that performance funding systems in states with long-lasting systems have changed over time and what political and social conditions explain the changes. We analyze the experiences of two states: Tennessee, which pioneered performance funding in 1979; and Florida, which launched it in 1994. Funding for Tennessee's system has steadily increased over the years, whereas Florida's funding history has been more volatile and now provides much fewer dollars than when it was at its peak. Both Tennessee and Florida have changed their performance indicators substantially. But Florida added nine and dropped two in 12 years, while Tennessee added only six and dropped four over 31 years. Moreover, in Tennessee, performance indicators are added at the end of a regular five-year review, whereas in Florida they have been added irregularly, with no tie to a cyclical process of program reappraisal. Overall, Tennessee's performance funding system has been considerably more stable than Florida's because its initial policy design delineated much more clearly how the system was to be governed and changed over time, and provided for regular and systematic evaluation. Moreover, Tennessee's state legislature has played a smaller role in the ongoing development of performance funding than Florida's. These differences in policy process carry important implications. A system where funding levels do not oscillate greatly and indicators change more gradually and systematically is more likely to allow institutions to plan effectively. Further, such a system will have a more secure base of consent from institutions if it comes under attack.Higher education, Education policykd109, rsn2106Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterWorking papersThe Demise of Higher Education Performance Funding Systems in Three Stateshttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:144991
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spirohttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:12695Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000Performance funding in higher education ties state funding directly to institutional performance on specific indicators, such as rates of retention, graduation, and job placement. One of the great puzzles about performance funding is that it has been both popular and unstable. Between 1979 and 2007, 26 states enacted it, but 14 of those states later dropped it (though two recently reestablished it). To shed light on the causes of this unstable institutionalization of performance funding, we examined three states that have experienced different forms of program cessation—Illinois, Washington, and Florida. For our analysis of the factors leading these three states to abandon performance funding systems, we drew upon interviews and documentary analyses that we conducted in these states. Our interviews were with state and local higher education officials, legislators and staff, governors and their advisors, and business leaders. The documents we analyzed included state government legislation, policy declarations and reports, newspaper accounts, and analyses by other investigators. We inevitably found that factors unique to one or another state played a role in the demise of performance funding. Nonetheless, we also found several common features: A sharp drop in higher education funding (present in Florida and Illinois); A lack of support by higher education institutions for the continuation of performance funding (all three states); The loss of key supporters of performance funding (all three states); Weak support by the business community (Florida and Illinois); and The establishment of performance funding through a budget proviso rather than a statute (Illinois and Washington). The final section of this paper discusses the implications of these findings for advocates of performance funding.Higher education, Education policykd109, rsn2106Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterWorking papersThe Political Origins of State-Level Performance Funding for Higher Education: The Cases of Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washingtonhttp://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:144966
Dougherty, Kevin J.; Natow, Rebecca Spiro; Bork, Rachel Julia Hare; Vega, Blanca Elizabethhttp://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:12687Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000Performance funding is a method of funding public institutions based not on inputs, such as enrollments, but on outcomes, such as retention, degree completion, and job placement. The principal rationale for performance funding has been that performance funding will prod institutions to be more effective and efficient, particularly in a time of increasing demands on higher education and increasingly straitened state finances. Critics of performance funding have warned that it could potentially provide state officials with an excuse to cut back on the regular state funding of higher education and at the same time provide college officials with an incentive to raise their retention and graduation rates by becoming more selective in their admissions. This report examines in detail the origins of state performance funding in six states: Florida, Illinois, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington. These states were chosen for analysis because they have considerably different state performance funding systems and histories as well as higher education governance arrangements, political systems, political cultures, and social characteristicsâ€”all of which enables the authors to look at the formation of state performance funding systems from a wide variety of angles. Interestingly, analysis reveals that there are striking similarities among these six states, particularly in terms of who were the main supporters and opponents, what beliefs animated them, and what political openings allowed policy entrepreneurs to put performance funding on the decision making agendas of state governments. This analysis yields some important lessons for policymakers, which are discussed at the conclusion of this paper.Community college education, Education policykd109, rsn2106, rjh2112, bev2102Politics and Education, Institute on Education and the Economy, Higher and Postsecondary Education, Community College Research CenterWorking papers